nsplayr

Amazon

The article mentioned a grandfather with an optional opt-in. Overall I'd be a big fan...slightly less spending on career (i.e. 20+ year) members post-retirement, more spending on those who serve less time but still deserve something other than a firm handshake, more money up front rather than having a huge pot of good waiting at the end of the 20 year rainbow, maintains the immediate checks after 20 and generous formulas (both proposals are still superior to even federal LE and much better than GS)...I like it. You could even argue it will help retention of mid-level troops since there are more payout gates at 6 and then 12 years rather than deferring everything until 20. Most pilots I think don't realize that for other officers who are not eligible for a bonus, the road to 20 looks pretty long if you're burning out in the 6-12 year point. I think more immediate incentives at 6 and 12 years would help people justify doing a few more years and honestly of you take a new assignment at 12+ years plus a bonus that may come with an ADSC the chances of you staying for a career have got to be pretty high.

Can we drop pro tip to his aide de camp that he should troll BO.net regularly? I've learned way more about the VSP/TERA/RIF train wreck here than from AFPC, myPers and my base combined. Could be said for quite a few topics.

Some of this has been OBE already. Glad the NW FL news is doing it's part to get the locals riled up in advance though.

Doesn't care for dick maybe?

My sq/cc (former fighter guy in a past life) reported there was significant grumbling here at the lovely 27th SOW. Apparently some other commanders in the Group blamed him as a former fighter dude. It's been telegraphed that when I and another guy go brief the OG later this week that week-old mustaches will be frowned upon. Needless to say, not surprising that AFSOC would lead the way on crushing morale and pegging fun meters. Sometimes I think the "special" in AFSOC has been "short bus special" all along...

I agree in Russia policy; we've clearly been trying to thaw relations for 6 years and have gotten nowhere, especially since Putin moved back in as president. However I'd saw our overall foreign policy has been a mixed bag of intervention and discretion. 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan, significant increase in RPA use in Pakistan, Yemen, etc., Libya, some raids in Somolia...I'd put those in the intervention column. For whatever talk there was during the now long-ago 2008 campaign, I'd say Obama has more than fully embraced many of the bush-era policies he originally campaigned against. The wisdom of high office I guess. Syria, Georgia, now Ukraine (so far)...discretion. Guess what all three of those last ones tie back into...Russia. So to me it looks like we're willing to intervene to put the hurt in the Taliban, AQ, Qadaffi, and AQ affiliates in Africa but not start a war with Russia in their backyard or deal with the shitstorm in Syria. I'm ok with those choices. I still ask: what's the policy alternate to our current posture WRT Ukraine? We've called it an invasion, we're sending our top diplomat, boycotted the G8 meeting in Sochi. Go back and now build the missile defense stations in Poland? Maybe. What else? Overall, I obviously don't buy the apology tour, no-spine meme based on all the intervention that's taken place recently. The McCain/Graham coalition of the GOP would have troops in Syria, Georgia, Ukraine, Libya, etc. is that honestly the right answer?

And there's the problem chief. You have no interest in getting "tangle in Ukraine," but you're first in line to criticize the US response. Just out of curiosity, what's your solution that both meets your desire for what I'm assuming is a more robust response yet doesn't violate your own interests of us not "getting tangle?" IMHO there's not much we can do at this point beyond what's already being discussed...boot Russia from the G8, talk about sanctions, send high-level folks (i.e. SecState) to Kiev to show solidarity, etc. Ukraine is not in NATO and Russia has a veto at the Security Council. Let's be real for a sec, Russia's national interests in Crimea and their ability to affect things on the ground there both far outweigh our own. It's their backyard so while we can yell about them invading another country (which we have), unless you're advocating "launching zee missiles" despite us having no explicit obligation to defend Ukrainian sovereignty and no overriding national interest in Crimea worth starting a war with Russia over, I'm all ears for what a better plan of action is. Part of us not being Team America: World Police means being patient and at time accepting (grudgingly) that other countries can and will do things we don't like and it's not worth the effort to stop them even though we probably could. I've heard a lot of Americans say they want to get us out of "foreign entanglements" that drain our blood and treasure yet when every crisis pops up (Libya, Syria, Joseph Kony, North Korea, Ukraine, etc. etc.), these chicken hawks are first in line saying we should do more. More of what exactly I ask? I'm hoping you're not in this camp. I support a pretty active foreign policy, but there's a limit to the dumb shit we should do and say to defend what are honestly peripheral interests even to a liberal internationalist. You and I both know this isn't worth going to war over so let's see what other options are on the table before the spear party begins.

I like what the Chief is (hopefully) doing WRT practice bleeding and MA foolishness. If he puts his very clear thoughts into written policy we'll all be better off for it. But it's kind of offensive, hilarious and sad all at the same time for him to seem all incredulous about the entire situation. If the AF's treatment of these issues is "crazy," then sir, you are Captain of the Crazy Ship and we're all waiting for you to turn the wheel. Gen. Welsh has served an incredible 38 years in the AF and has been a senior leader for 20 of those years (i.e. O-6 or above). Was the evolution of this nonsense over the course of his career not apparent during that time?? Boss, it sounds like you "get it," like I said, we're waiting and counting on you to fix it sooner rather than later.

Liquid, AFSOC, and from what I hear other MAJCOMS, have an unspoken but well known policy of not sending anyone to SOS in residence if they have not completed the correspondence course. Why is this? Why did this policy arrise in the first place? I can't make any logical sense of how that decision was made other than using the DL course as a "test of commitment" to big blue. Am I supposed to gain something from that course that is not gained in residence? Beyond worrying about the past, I now have a direct quote from the CSAF telling people like my younger peers not to do practice bleeding. If you are a WG/CC again at Cannon or Hurlburt, would you be willing to send someone who has not completed DL to the in-res course? The current leaders of 1 & 27 SOWs apparently still say no. Why do you think this is still going on when the vector from CSAF seems pretty clear? More on topic with your last post, I can tell from my year group and those IVO my own who will likely be a school select and thus compete to be future AFSOC squadron commanders. Some of those people are absolutely the best and have it all...I'd follow them anywhere. Great leaders, smart, all the right jobs and boxes and excellent in the seat so to speak. Others...not so much...paper tigers if you will. SQ/CC loved them as an LT or very young Captain, got early strats and upgrades and maybe worked a OG exec gig here or there. But ask any bro flying the line in the squadron and they'll immediately PID that some of those folks are average at best and often not even that. Future ineffective or even toxic commanders. How do we keep the parts of our promotion and advancement system that are picking the real winners but enact enough reform to pump the breaks on my above-described paper tigers? I want to see the best of my peers be my boss one day and I want those future mistakes stopped now before they are a school select and thus mostly unstoppable on their rise. I vote for the 360 feedback you said GOs we're doing and come up with a way that senior raters see those numbers. Too often I've seen flight commanders and shop chiefs give honest feedback to the squadron CC on paper tigers only to see the final-form OPR still includes sky-high strats that they, the front-line supervisors, believe are not warranted. BTW I agree that many complaints here don't reflect what I've seen in my career, but in my little world paper tigers are a big problem for the future of my community and I'm worried too many of the great dudes will punch before they have a chance to make a big impact as a CC someday. PME should and will get done my almost all and the sooner we get on the CSAF's anti-practice bleeding, MA-not-required, job performance-based evaluations and strats the better. Thanks for engaging.

Kinda want to print this out and leave it on my WG/CC's desk somehow...definitely living under the unofficial but "official" practice-bleeding policy among other dumbness that the Chief has specifically spoken out against or acted on.

That's awesome dude...glad my nerd calculations added up pretty damn close. I recently ran the numbers for myself and financial independence was closer than I imagined, especially if you factor in an AD retirement pension. For me, I calculated my annual spending minus mortgage (which will be paid off by the time I would have enough money to "retire") and investments (not absolutely necessary once financially independent and the kid is through college) and arrived at around $40K in spending. Right off the bat, in today's dollars a High-3 Lt Col retirement is IVO $48K and indexed to inflation so boom, there you have it. Stay in for 20, make O-5 and don't spend like a drunken sailor and you're financially independent around age 42. Still the best deal out there for those willing to get kicked in the nuts for at least 20 years. On top of that, based on my current savings rate and reasonable future increases in income, we'd have around $625K in the bank at "retirement," which would translate into an additional $25K take every year (i.e. 4% of principle as an annual safe withdrawal). So no only would I be financially independent, but I'd have the ability to spend damn near twice as much as I am today. Honestly I'd have to acquire some pretty fancy tastes to straight spend more than $6K per month on things other than investing or a mortgage. Plain and simple, every military officer has the ability to be financially independent i.e. you never have to work for money again at retirement. And that's with a very modest savings rate. Even without the mil retirement (which I'm not planning on), I'd need $1m in the bank to sustain $40K per spending annually, which I think is doable before age 50, and honestly it'd be way easier to tighten the belt a little bit or do TR or some kind of other part time work, thus requiring much less in the bank to live off of. Every dollar you spend today is gone forever unless you used it to buy an appreciating asset. On the other hand every dollar you invest goes to work for you every single day for the rest of your life and over time produces many, many other dollars that do the same. Would you rather own stuff or freedom, time and energy?

With that description of your (TTP's) investments, if you're single you're making at least $135K if you're truly investing 30% of your income. $17,500 - max out TSP (assuming no deployments, the max could be much higher if so) $5,500 - max out IRA (assuming your AGI is <$112K...probable with BAH if you're mil) $6,000 - $500 x 12 for 529 $12,000 - $1K x 12 for taxable investments Total: $41,000 /0.3 = $135K So...either you're a general, have some income on the side or are married and the wife makes money, which in that case you'd have to make $150,500 to meet the 30% due to the married limit for IRA being $11K. On a related note, I'm bored and congrats, sounds like you've got a good plan

Finals, first off, good rant...anyone want an over/under on glasses of scotch? Let's start the bidding at 5. However...based on the following: ...you may want to stay in your lane. You may or may not know what the F you are talking about. Agreed though that probably no 11XX joined & went through UPT to end up fly unmanned forever. IMHO the slick PC-12 NSAV guys have one of the best deals left on active duty right now in terms of deployment location and how they get to operate. Plus they built a really legit squadron bar. Not sure how we solve the problems you've complained about, however I'm sure the board will be all ears for your ideas on how we re-open all those awesome European locations and plant every willing and capable ass in a sweet 5th gen fighter minus the associated Middle East commitments, alpha tours or desk work...

I'm sure it's, "Under review up at Air Staff" or some other such nonsense. Ready...fire...AIM!!

Saw this around the interwebs today and figured it belonged here...

Webmail is an SA-building tool that lets you keep somewhat track of part of your legitimate duties. Don't let an SA tool distract you from your primary mission (downrange flying, spending time with the fam, etc.), but don't stubbornly refuse to use all the tools that are available to you. The ability to check webmail while TDY, on leave or deployed has been a key enabler to making my life better once returning back to the mothership on several occasions. I've been on leave for 10 days now, but I've been able to expedite my Palace Chase application because the ISR finally sent me some documents and I happened to check my webmail. IMHO I'd rather get a decision on that sooner rather than later and I'm glad I saw the email the day it was sent. Never once felt like a slave to email since I check on my own time and only if I feel like it. YMMV. To the OP asking about security cert. issues on OWA, I've had the same issues since being migrated to us.af.mil. Can't read any of my previously sent emails due to S/MIME issues among other problems. Google "military CAC" for lots of good troubleshooting tips. I'm running a mac (OSX Mavericks) and Safari 7.0.1 emulating IE 8.0 so there are a lot of variables as to why it's not working for me. Should be relatively straight forward on a PC running IE natively.

Fozzy, are you ineligible because you have a DOS perhaps? Interesting that the system let you try...I couldn't get it to work from home but will be attempting at work on Tuesday. Good luck to you good sir!

Just interviewed with a Guard unit for an AGR instructor-type position so I figured I'd post what I remember of the questions here for others to benefit from. I definitely benefited from this tread to just get a feel for what would be asked...first job interview in about 6 years so good to brush up on some standard-ish questions. Background: It was an informal interview (i.e. flight suit) between myself, the technician SQ/CC and the OG/CC. Very laid back, 10 questions, & I'm an active duty guy rather than someone off the street. What I can remember in no particular order is below: 1. Tell me about a time when you had to make an unpopular decision. 2. What's your biggest weakness? 3. Tell me about your written communication skills. 4. Tell me about how you prepare to give a verbal presentation to a group. 5. Tell me about a time when you were excited to work on a new or innovative project. 6. Tell me about how you seek advice when making a big decision. Who do you typically consult with? So yea...only at 60% retention of that material only 2 days after the fact...I'll add the rest if I can come up with the rest after talking to a buddy of mine who interviewed right after me. Cheers

The in-service recruiter I talked to said there's a greater chance of getting approved if you can attach a letter of intent to hire from a unit with your application but that it was not absolutely necessary. Take it as one data point; not putting 100% stock in the random comments of some phoning-it-in SMSgt who took 2 weeks to even respond to my calls and emails...

Haven't read "Duty" yet, but throwing out the possibility that someone who was a career intelligence analyst with a PhD from Georgetown who also has written an autobiography before may have the tools to be a pretty good writer himself.

Same issue...will try tomorrow from work (snow day at CVS). Palace Chase is my #1 goal at this point anyways. If it doesn't work then oh well. GL to you!

HAHAHA...And people with UPT commitments were eligible until yesterday. Or maybe they still are, who knows I think I'll take my chances and apply anyways. There is an overage in my AFSC and year group. My confidence that AFPC knows it's own rules and will apply them across the board is zero.

FWIW I'm applying for both VSP and Palace Chase even though I have a DOS set from the 7-day option. 2007 K12S3X with 9.6 months of nav school commitment remaining. Clearly the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at AFPC so at this point I have absolutely nothing to lose by applying for all of the above and seeing what happens. This is somehow a bigger debacle than I had imagined. for all the pilots especially who thought this was their ticket to early freedom.

Nailed it. I just went though this. Got orders with a RNLTD within 1 year of the end of my commitment, did the 7-day option, got sent on the assignment anyways. It will be 11.9 months boots on the ground at my assignment, not counting terminal leave (~80 days). May have to do one last deployment that will basically prevent me from taking all that leave as terminal because, as herk driver said, terminal leave is at the discretion of your commander. I would not recommend this path for many; I lucked out and have a great SQ/CC who isn't holding it against guys with DOSs, YMMV. Pro tip: don't "burn the bridge" if the assignment will add less than a year to your commitment.